58 better for Obama than 60?

[JSojourner]

I wish I had been paying closer attention, but with the phone ringing and my other (non-political) life competing, I didn't hear who said it or the context.

But one of the talking heads was saying that Obama may be better off in terms of getting his agenda passed with 57 or 58 Democrats in the Senate than with 60 or more. 

Huh?

Did anyone hear this, too?  And what was this guy talking about?  Anyone?  Bueller?

[Jacobtm]

Didn't hear that, but maybe the idea is that with 60 seats, Dems will end up raising taxes on people Obama promised not to?

[True Democrat]

I heard it, vaguely.

It was something about how it will be better to for Obama to reach out to moderate Republicans (Snow, Collins, Specter, Smith if he wins) to break filibusters than to rely solely on Democrats.  There's some validity to the argument.

[Sam Spade]

Look, if you saw the numbers that I saw last evening, Southern Democrats (as well as Appalachia) will be often running against Obama at every chance they get.  At least the smart ones will.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Look, if you saw the numbers that I saw last evening, Southern Democrats (as well as Appalachia) will be often running against Obama at every chance they get.  At least the smart ones will.

I could care less about what those West Virginia Democrats who don't vote on the economy will do.

[tokar]

Look, if you saw the numbers that I saw last evening, Southern Democrats (as well as Appalachia) will be often running against Obama at every chance they get.  At least the smart ones will.

I could care less about what those West Virginia Democrats who don't vote on the economy will do.

You could or you COULDN'T?

[ChrisFromNJ]

Look, if you saw the numbers that I saw last evening, Southern Democrats (as well as Appalachia) will be often running against Obama at every chance they get.  At least the smart ones will.

What numbers?

Link?

[Sam Spade]

Look, if you saw the numbers that I saw last evening, Southern Democrats (as well as Appalachia) will be often running against Obama at every chance they get.  At least the smart ones will.

What numbers?

Link?

Uh, the election results.

[Lief 🗽]

Look, if you saw the numbers that I saw last evening, Southern Democrats (as well as Appalachia) will be often running against Obama at every chance they get.  At least the smart ones will.

What numbers?

Link?

Uh, the election results.

Thank God the Democratic party is no longer beholden to the South then.

[Verily]

Look, if you saw the numbers that I saw last evening, Southern Democrats (as well as Appalachia) will be often running against Obama at every chance they get.  At least the smart ones will.

A remarkably poor argument. The Democrats are not dependent on the southern block in the party (at least not those in any danger of losing) at all in order to pass legislation in the House. In the Senate, Rockefeller, Byrd, Pryor and Lincoln are popular enough to easily win reelection regardless of what they do (within reason, of course) while Landrieu is also not necessary. They certainly won't be voting against their party with any regularity, much as Snowe and Collins spent very little time voting against their party (at least on the actual agenda, when it was needed) yet easily won reelection in 2006 and 2008. More importantly, those regions are still not anti-Democratic regions, and Obama really has nowhere to go but up in places which aren't sure whether he plans to put white people in camps and declare Sharia law.

I think you are letting your own desires cloud your judgment on this. But I've seen a fair amount of that lately, and it's disappointing.

[Sam Spade]

I think you are letting your own desires cloud your judgment on this. But I've seen a fair amount of that lately, and it's disappointing.

I guess all this time I've been wishing that I could reach your hack potential and post-election will now  try even more to do so.  I think I can do this better in the future.

[TomC]

Well, I hope they let the judges through, but not all the spending.

[Verily]

I think you are letting your own desires cloud your judgment on this. But I've seen a fair amount of that lately, and it's disappointing.

I guess all this time I've been wishing that I could reach your hack potential and post-election will now  try even more to do so.  I think I can do this better in the future.

Thank you

[sg0508]

Look at who is up for the GOP in 2012.  It could be another bloodbath.

Dave Vitter of LA, Rich Burr of NC and Mel Martinez are surely in trouble.

Bunning of KY and McCain could retire. I don't see any democratic seats in peril.

[John Dibble]

It's better for the nation as far as I'm concerned. We're going to have a Democratic House, Senate, and President - I'd rather one of those things be Republican just to maintain checks and balances. One party with too much power is generally a bad thing.

[The Dowager Mod]

It's better for the nation as far as I'm concerned. We're going to have a Democratic House, Senate, and President - I'd rather one of those things be Republican just to maintain checks and balances. One party with too much power is generally a bad thing.

We do still have a third branch and last time i looked it was still a conservative one on most things.

[memphis]

Look, if you saw the numbers that I saw last evening, Southern Democrats (as well as Appalachia) will be often running against Obama at every chance they get.  At least the smart ones will.

A remarkably poor argument. The Democrats are not dependent on the southern block in the party (at least not those in any danger of losing) at all in order to pass legislation in the House. In the Senate, Rockefeller, Byrd, Pryor and Lincoln are popular enough to easily win reelection regardless of what they do (within reason, of course) while Landrieu is also not necessary. They certainly won't be voting against their party with any regularity, much as Snowe and Collins spent very little time voting against their party (at least on the actual agenda, when it was needed) yet easily won reelection in 2006 and 2008. More importantly, those regions are still not anti-Democratic regions, and Obama really has nowhere to go but up in places which aren't sure whether he plans to put white people in camps and declare Sharia law.

^^^^^^^

There just aren't that many white Southern Dems anymore and the national Democratic majorities aren't that narrow anymore. White Southerners and their interests now hold less sway in national politics than any time since the 1920s.